No Thanks
Keep In Touch With

Sign up and we'll send inspiration straight to you.

Martha Stewart takes your privacy seriously. To learn more, please read our Privacy Policy.

Light Chocolate-Chunk Brownies

These brownies have a triple helping of chocolate: cocoa powder and melted chocolate in the batter, plus chocolate chunks on top.

  • Prep:
  • Total Time:
  • Yield: Makes 16
Light Chocolate-Chunk Brownies

Source: Everyday Food, 2008


  • 2 tablespoons vegetable oil, such as safflower, plus more for pan
  • 3/4 cup all-purpose flour, (spooned and leveled)
  • 1/2 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
  • 1/2 teaspoon salt
  • 1/2 teaspoon baking soda
  • 1 cup packed dark-brown sugar
  • 1/2 cup unsweetened applesauce
  • 1/2 cup reduced-fat sour cream
  • 4 ounces bittersweet chocolate (2 ounces melted, 2 ounces coarsely chopped)
  • 2 large eggs


  1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Brush a 9-inch square baking pan with oil; line with a strip of parchment paper, leaving an overhang on two sides, and brush paper with oil.

  2. In a medium bowl, whisk together flour, cocoa, salt, and baking soda; set aside. In another medium bowl, whisk together brown sugar, applesauce, sour cream, melted chocolate, eggs, and oil until combined; add flour mixture, and mix just until moistened.

  3. Spread batter in prepared pan; sprinkle top with chopped chocolate. Bake until a toothpick inserted in center of cake comes out with a few moist crumbs attached, 30 to 35 minutes.

  4. Cool completely in pan. Use paper overhang to lift cake from pan; peel off paper, and discard. Cut into 16 squares.

Reviews (46)

  • Muthu Radhakrishnan 20 Jan, 2014

    Please do not try this recipe it didn't come out good
    It was like rubber

  • Jessica Delgado 27 Feb, 2013

    I made these today. In the middle of making the brownies, I noticed that my chocolate stash had been stashed by my kids :/ so, I had to improvise, because I had the oven on and the dry ingredients mixed... I had chocolate pudding so I used that instead of the melted chocolate and you know what? the brownies came out delicious - very light and yummy! :)
    I will def. make them again!

  • nyc2naples 20 Jul, 2011

    These brownies were cakey, not chewy, so did not work for me. I should point out that I made some changes, though none of them should've caused the cakey-ness: used half white and half whole wheat pastry flour, used 3/4c sugar instead of 1c, used only 1oz of chocolate on top instead of 2oz. If anyone is interested, I did a nutritional analysis (for the recipe with my modifications) based on 16 servings: 124 calories, 5g fat, 26mg cholesterol, 1.5g fiber, 17g sugar, 2.4g protein.

  • Ashley616 9 Jul, 2011

    Brownies were easy and delicious! I only used 1/2 cup of sugar, I felt that a cup was too much. They still turned out fantastic. Very fudgy and satisfying.

  • bobbi12781 28 Sep, 2008

    I forgot to mention that I made these without the 2T oil, and didn't even know the difference.

  • bobbi12781 28 Sep, 2008

    I'm not sure how "light" this recipe is, but I like that there's no butter or oil. The first time I made these, I found them to be too cake-like. The second time, I used 1 whole egg and 1 egg yolk, and the texture was more like a brownie. Good recipe.

  • jexika35 11 Jun, 2008

    This is a very light brownie, so you don't feel too full or guilty! I recommend it.

  • Suly 10 Feb, 2008

    A lot of chocolate ! I loved !

  • cayars 7 Feb, 2008

    I made these for the Super Bowl and they were a definite flop. They were too light and "airy" compared, not at all what I would describe as "chunky". And way too much chocolate --- the melted chocloate on top was definitely overkill. My guests were disappointed.

  • MOMMAWOF8 5 Feb, 2008

    I would like to know how many carbs are in this . Sounds good but if it has to many carbs I can't eat it.

  • icensnow 3 Feb, 2008

    I made these brownies last night and they were great! Not as sweet as regular brownies, but it definitely curbs your chocolate craving!

  • NanMarietta 31 Jan, 2008

    This recipe sounds good but I need to know the nutritional values. I see that someone has added some of them -- but I need to know the sodium content. I'd like to see nutritional values in the magazine of everything that is considered "light", including carbs, protein, and sodium.

  • Wandaq 31 Jan, 2008

    What an easy recipe to double. With dark chocolate it is quite delectable when warm, awesome with ice cream. When cool, ohhh my. It is wonderful either way. It is soooo light and fluffy. Quite lovely with dark and milk chocolate mixed. Highly recommeded!

  • californialisa 29 Jan, 2008

    In the Jan/Feb 2008 issue the following nutrition information is listed for the Light Chocolate Chunk Brownies:
    per brownie: 154 cal; 6.8 g fat (2.7 g sat fat); 2.8 g protein; 24.3 g carb; 1.7 g fiber.

  • ngill1907 25 Jan, 2008

    Actually the Food magazine does contain all the nutritional information for all the recipes - its always located on the 2nd or 3rd to last page of the magazine.

  • tarentella 25 Jan, 2008

    I calculate these at 150 calories each, but I didn't do the points. I also made them and while they are not that good warm (you can taste the applesauce too much), they are QUITE good cold. Both my children liked them and while they're more cakelike than fudgy brownie like, I liked them too. The sprinkled chocolate on top really adds chocolate flavor and it's a good trick for other light desserts.

  • Jeani 24 Jan, 2008

    Amen to the comments below!!! I need that nutritional info, too...high cholesterol, etc.! Please add that to your recipes!!! Product makers must have it on their labels!! We would appreciate it!

  • SharronF 24 Jan, 2008

    I was just wondering the same thing - where's the nutritional info? I am on Weight Watchers and need that info to calculate the points value!

  • AH1162 23 Jan, 2008

    I don't like the (FOOD) Magazine from Martha Stewart because it doen't give you the nutritional information. Exactly- how light are these brownies? I did not renew my subscribtion for the magazine because there is no nutritional information with the recipes. They don't give it to you here on the website, either.

  • JaneBM 23 Jan, 2008

    Martha's recipe from her basic cookbook is still the best.

  • separatedandbaking4myself 23 Jan, 2008

    Well, after I popped my pan into the oven, I see the 2 oz of oil still measured, sitting on the counter, not in the brownies. They baked up fine, were really gooey, and seem to taste better and more fudgy as each day goes by. So I guess mine are even "lighter".


  • separatedandbaking4myself 23 Jan, 2008

    Well, I don't know how "light" they are, but after I popped my pan into the oven, Isaw the 2 oz of oil still sitting on the counter, and not in the brownies. They baked up fine, and each they seem to taste better and better. So, mine are even "lighter".


  • eahenderson 23 Jan, 2008

    Cry me a river people. Obviously it's better, there is very little oil (fat), but it is not calorie free. Eat in moderation or stay away from brownies,that would be the best way to make sure you're eating healthy.

  • juhuber 23 Jan, 2008

    I am a registered dietitian, and I did the nutritional analysis of the brownie recipe. Each brownie (16) contains 188 calories and 7 grams of fat. I'm sure that this is less than a standard brownie, but still a lot of calories and fat, as are most desserts. We all just need to remember moderation!

  • lburkland 23 Jan, 2008

    need nutrition info. Its the only way to know if it is light

  • lainielady 23 Jan, 2008

    I am really disappointed that the nutritional content was not listed, I don't make any recipe unless it lists the nutritional content.Martha is really behind the times in this department.

  • andreasibbers 23 Jan, 2008

    I agree! I would like to find the nutrition facts together with the recipe. As I am living in Germany , I am not able to buy the magazine to receive the information from the back of it.

  • tweety1213 23 Jan, 2008

    In today's health oriented world it truly amazes me that someone like Martha Stewart has yet to get with the program. I want nutrition information for the recipes I use just like for the food I chose to buy. I do not have the means to figure out all the health information that should be included with all the recipes. This information should come from food experts that devise the recipes and should be included with the ingredients.

  • TPBTG 22 Jan, 2008

    I agree with "Bayle". Until you list the exact amount of calories, fat, fiber, and how many a "serving" is then I cannot figure out if this is truly a "Light" recipe.
    The amounts of ingredients is helpful but that just means I have to figure all that out. Martha should have people who can do that for her and make these recipes easier for us to follow!

  • flits21 22 Jan, 2008

    Nutrition facts are given at the back of the magazine "Everyday Food" for all the recipes in that issue.

  • erino 22 Jan, 2008

    Duh it's low in fat! Do you see it call for a 1/2 cup or so of oil???

  • Bayle 22 Jan, 2008

    Every time I get on this site some one asks for nutritional info, including myself. Why is it that you refuse to include the information even in a recipe that you say is light? Light in what--Fat, Calories, Sugar, Sodium? Unfortunately, I'm about to
    give up on your website, it's too frustrating.

  • PyrMom01 22 Jan, 2008

    Check out You can enter a recipe and it will "healthify" any recipe given. Pretty cool site!

  • reginay 22 Jan, 2008

    Yes, I agree, would like to see nutritional facts!

  • kjsapp 22 Jan, 2008

    I agree with the other remarks. I have wished for nutritional information on all the recipes provided ... but it certainly should be for those listed at "light." Thanks!

  • radley 22 Jan, 2008

    By the way, if you run it through the Weight Watchers recipe builder, they have three points each. Which isn't bad at all. Except that 16 servings from a 9-inch square pan makes for tiny brownies.

  • radley 22 Jan, 2008

    I agree with the requests for nutritional information. How hard would that be to provide? And it would make all the recipes more useful. It's something I've asked for repeatedly.

  • japleve7 22 Jan, 2008

    It seems that the term light has different meanings to different magazines..are they 120 calories a piece or 320 a piece...we need to define the term light.

  • surprises 22 Jan, 2008

    What are the Brownie's lightend up from. Without calorie info and nutritional value the words lighten up don't mean much.

  • destinystreet 22 Jan, 2008

    I also wish the recipes on this site included nutritional info. I'd be more apt to make them.

  • Eframes 22 Jan, 2008

    I couldn't agree more with comment #3 (Since the recipe is "light" this and all "light" recipes should include the Nutritional Facts). It's so important to give nutritional fact for people who need to know dietary facts.

  • Melsy8 17 Jan, 2008

    This is definitely more cake like than brownie like, however they do get more "fudgey" the next day. None the less they were good, and my kids loved them with some vanilla frozen yogurt on top.

  • DSA 12 Jan, 2008

    This recipe should be labeled as chocolate chocolate chunk cake as it really has the texture of a cake. I am not sure how light this recipe is given the fact that a whole bar of bittersweet chocolate (4 oz.) is added to this recipe. The applesauce and sour cream make for a very moist cake.

  • cantonfrau 11 Jan, 2008

    Since the recipe is "light" this and all "light" recipes should include the Nutritional Facts

  • fleurluver 8 Jan, 2008

    Low fat brownie

  • chiccup 8 Jan, 2008

    These are really good...but not exactly a brownie. It's more like a snack cake, moist, rich, and chocolatey. I used dark cocoa powder and coconut oil and it turned out great!

Related Topics